Chet Ram vs Devi Ram

During the pendency, of, Civil Suit No. 81/10 of 2016, the plaintiffs'' application, cast, under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC,

was, ex-parte allowed on 13.4.2016. Subsequent thereto, after service being effectuated, upon, the defendants'', the latter proceeded to make an

application for vacating the aforesaid rendered ex-parte order. The application moved by the defendants,'' before, the learned trial Judge, for,

vacating the ex-parte order, is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel, for the defendants'' to yet remain un-adjudicated. Even when the

defendants'' application, for, vacating the ex-parte order recorded on 13.4.2016, by, the learned trial Judge, remains un-adjudicated, upon, by the

learned trial Judge, yet, the defendants'', proceeded to institute an appeal therefrom, before the learned Appellate Court. Obviously, the appeal, as

aptly concluded by the learned Appellate Court, was, dismissible, given the learned trial Judge, not, within the ambit of Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC,

whereby he stood enjoined to, within one month, since the apposite preferments'', hence make a pronouncement, upon, the application, cast

therebefore by the plaintiff, under, the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, (i) thereupon hence the learned Appellate Court made an apt

direction, upon, the learned trial Judge, to, within one month, elapsing since 22.11.2017, hence make a pronouncement(s), upon, the apposite

applications''. The provisions borne in Order 39 Rule 3A, are extracted hereinafter:-

3A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days.- Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite

party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted;

and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability.

The defendant being aggrieved therefrom, has, approached this Court, through, the instant petition.

Since the defendant, was, for want, of, a participatory decision, on merits, being recorded, upon, the plaintiff''s application, cast, under the

provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, hence aggrieved (i) AND thereupon had made a motion before the learned Appellate Court, motion

thereof, was declined with a direction rendered, by it, upon the learned trial Judge, for, his within the tenure specified in Rule 3A CPC, hence make

a pronouncement, on merits, upon the apposite motion(s), (ii) rather also its maintaining the ex-parte order of status quo, pronounced, by the

learned trial Judge, (iii) thereupon this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate, that, when rather hence, the grievance(s) of the defendant being

accepted, by the learned Appellate Court, to conclude, qua his, yet, holding any surviving besides subsisting grievance, for this Court making any

interference(s), with the order impugned before this Court, (iii) moreso, when the learned Appellate Court has directed the learned trial Judge, to,

make pronouncement(s), upon, merits of the application, pending before it, under the provisions, of, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Consequently,

the petition is dismissed. However, any observations, occurring, in the impugned order, shall not be borne in mind, by, the learned trial Judge while

he pronounces a decision, on, the defendants'' application and upon the plaintiff''s application, yet, the learned trial Judge is directed to, within two

weeks hereafter, also after hearing the parties, hence make a decision, on merits, upon, the plaintiffs'' application, cast under the provisions of

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, AND, upon, the defendants'' application, for vacating the ex-parte order. All pending applications also disposed of.

The records be sent back forthwith.